Tribolum.com Making Light of Things

Maybe the U.S. didn't feel like sitting on our hands like we did in WWII... perhaps the idea of preventing anymore terror from Iraq BEFORE we are attacked came across as a nice idea. Remember? We didn't get involved until Japan attacked us... the war didn't affect us, yet millions of Jews were being systematically destroyed. We could have done something and we didn't.

Stop playing ignorant. You know good and well that Saddam was only providing enough information and destroying enough weapons to appease the U.N. at the time. If he were serious about compliance, he would've worked MUCH faster. And remember... we didn't even have to go to the U.N. at all... it shows that we were worth giving that process a chance. And when it so obviously failed (yes, failed) we decided to take action.

I know people with your point of view keep saying that you agree that Saddam is a bad guy and he doesn't need to be in power... but how would he be removed from power? When would his reign of terror end and how?

"Give peace a chance"? That's the phrase I keep hearing. Antiwar protestors say it, yet they ignore the fact that Saddam is anything but peaceful with even his own people.

What will you say if and when we find chemical and/or biological weapons? What if we were to find and thwart plans to destroy your school found in Baghdad? (...and I use that only as an example) Would you be an antiwar advocate then?

Please, a response this time would be appreciated.

It is absurd that you would compare this with WW2. This war is a preemptive strike on a country which you say is a threat to the United States, yet is so weak that your military will roll over it in a matter of days.

I'm sure chemical weapons will be found in Iraq - they were supplied by the United States in the 1980s.

The U.S. doesn't have to go through the U.N.? Is it not a mockery of the democracy you claim to possess and defend? Is not the world accountable for itself? Has the United States turned into a global dictator, while Saddam remains a local one? If war were such an obvious choice, wouldn't the majority of countries have seen it that way?

Or are they just morons, like is advocated in your blog?

I think Walker pretty much said it all, but let me add this. It's a question that was posed by an Iraqi who defected to the U.S. that he asked a war protestor:

How exactly would leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

The truth is, all things being equal, you can not in good conscience reply to that question with anything except "It can't." There is simply no way to leave him in power and still promote peace and justice there. Your question of "what would have happened if we'd given the inspections more time?" can be easily answered by looking at the past ten years. Nothing! The U.N. has been urging him to disarm for years, but not a thing has happened. I guarantee you, if we'd still given him more time, the same thing would've happened. People want to say "I guess we'll never know if we could've solved this peacefully", but the truth is, we do know, because it's what we've been trying to do for years. Guess what? It hasn't worked.

Our bombs might kill a handful of Iraqi Civilians, but Saddam has killed thousands and thousands of them. That's what this war is about. And you can stick THAT in your blog.

A Russian expert predicts that 500,000 Iraqis will die. That's a mighty big handful.

What's the war about? I think Sheridan did a great job of analysing it. Find me something equally well-researched, and I don't mean from the White House.

A few more things:

"This war is a preemptive strike on a country which you say is a threat to the United States, yet is so weak that your military will roll over it in a matter of days."

You know as well as I do that Military Campaign != Terrorism. Not even close. We will roll over their military through our own military tactics, while still trying our best to minimize civilian casualties. Terrorism is a completely different story, because terrorists have no regard for civilian life (or their own lives in many cases). Because of this, a small handful of people can take out thousands of civilians. Obviously their military is no threat to ours - the threat is in what one person with no regard for human life could do.

"I'm sure chemical weapons will be found in Iraq - they were supplied by the United States in the 1980s."

This argument has no merit. Anyone with any common sense knows that the ebb and flow of World Politics changes all the time. When the U.S. was supporting Hussein in the 80s, he was actually a fairly stablizing force in the Middle East, in a time when it was very unstable. At the time, it was in our best interests to support them. Did we make the right decision? Obviously not. But hindsight is 20/20. They took a gamble and, though it paid off at the time, it obviously came back to bite us, just like Bin Ladin did. However, the U.S. has the sense to try and fix their mistakes, unlike the U.N. who seems to think it will fix itself given enough "time". Blaming this administration for mistakes that were made 20 years ago is pretty weak.

"The U.S. doesn't have to go through the U.N.? Is it not a mockery of the democracy you claim to possess and defend? Is not the world accountable for itself? Has the United States turned into a global dictator, while Saddam remains a local one? If war were such an obvious choice, wouldn't the majority of countries have seen it that way?"

Nice rhetoric there, you want me to write a song about it? Listen, the U.S. knows it should go through the U.N. in situations like this, and it did. Resolution 1441, passed last fall, specifically said that Iraq had to disarm completely and immediately, or face severe consequences. That resolution passed 15-0. Iraq then led weapons inspectors and the world on a goose chase for 6 months, so the U.S. finally had enough. And this was just for the most recent one! There have been SEVERAL resolutions saying basically the same thing passed over the last decade. Don't blame us for getting tired of putting up with the U.N. What do you expect the U.S. to do when France says they will Veto ANY new resolution without even reading it first? The U.N. - just like the League of Nations - is becoming a joke, and unless they learn to back up some of their own policies, they will go the same way as the LoN. As for international support, I'm not sure what "majority" of countries you're reffering to that don't support us. At last count we have 35 named countries backing us up, with another 15 or so doing so in private. That makes this the largest coalition since World War II, and is even larger than the one in the Gulf war. So where is this "majority"?

As for the "morons" comment, anyone who purposefully blocks off public highways and interstates, spits on american soldiers, and generally disturbs the peace, all in the name of "peaceful protest", is indeed a moron. Our constitution allows for peaceful protest, not the kind of things these idiots are doing. I've protested things before too, but I have NEVER broken the law while doing it. Many of these anti-war protestors just can't say the same thing.

500,000? That's a joke. I'm not going to speculate on this too much, but I'll tell you what: If this war ends and 500,000 iraqi civilians are dead because of it, I'll gladly come back here and eat my words. However, I can almost guarantee that it will be no where NEAR that. Not even in the same ball park. I'd say somewhere on the order of hundreds of civilians may die in this war. Yes, it's a lot, but compared to the number of civilians that Hussein has already killed, it is a handful. Hopefully it won't even be that many though. We'll see.

Anyway, I really don't feel like arguing about this anymore. The war has begun, like it or not. Only time will tell what the outcome will be.

Look Dookie, I know that you're all emotionally-charged right now, and the last thing I want to do is make this argument personal. I'd love for you to write a song and all, but that's another thing for another day.

I will however address this:

"Anyone with any common sense knows that the ebb and flow of World Politics changes all the time."

Fact is, anyone with common sense would expect some consistency in policy. The when, whats and wheres have to add up.

Are you saying Bush should be held accountable for a policy he didn't create?

And *consistency*?? If we were wrong then, and we know that now, why would we continue with a policy that was wrong? Why?

The best hope for peace we have at this point is for it to be over quickly.